Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23108)	8/5/2006 6:36:01 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I had posted concerning Brinker's calls: "The point is that Brinker has only made one bear market call in his life AT THE TIME and he was wrong." Math in what just plain spin says: "Not true. In August of 2000 he wrote quite plainly that his model was bearish, so he had one bear call that was right, and one that was wrong." Talk about hubris Math. Let's look at what Brinker claims "My model is either bullish or bearish. If my model ever turns bearish I will go to 100% cash. If others want to leave their money in the market that is up to them but if my model ever turns bearish we will recommend 100% cash" In 1988, Brinker went to 100% cash--and there was no bear. In January 2000 as you know, indeed until August, Brinker claimed that his model was "NOT BEARISH" and he was NOT GIVING A "SELL SIGNAL". He was making a "tactical asset allocation" and claimed some jive about how much of the upside those following his "tactical asset allocation" would get if the market went up 10%. Now in August 2000 Brinker did for the first time use the word bearish. BUT LOOK AT WHAT BRINKER DID. He reduced his equity allocation by 5% and kept TEFQX as a "BUY" and two months later sent the most urgent advice he's ever sent recommending IMMEDIATE ACTION to take up to 1/2 of all the money he had removed from the market and buy QQQs in the 80s. He held all of those positions to this very day, adding back in the other 1/3 of a portfolio in Oct. 2000. Now Math, is it your position that Brinker was LYING about his model being bullish or bearish and if it was ever bearish he would go to 100% cash? Math do you believe that Brinker was LYING in January and February and early March 2000 when he would claim weekly that he was NOT BEARISH and had NOT ISSUED A SELL SIGNAL? Math do you believe Brinker was bearish when he held on to 1/3 of a portfolio and added into it up to another 1/3 in the high flying QQQs and HELD ALL THE WAY DOWN? If you believe Brinker was bearish then we KNOW that Brinker is a huge LIAR.--because he said he was not. We know that Brinker is a huge LIAR about what he would do if his model ever became bearish if you are correct. Agreed? And then of course if you are claming that Brinker just fibbed "a widdle bit" to "hedge" in early 2000 (that's LYING btw) but Brinker was bearish all along--then we have to agree that Brinker is the most INCOMPETENT MARKETIMER OF ALL TIME. To hold that much crap and add the worst of the worst and hang on screams that Brinker was totally CLULESS rather than bearish. "Not true. In August of 2000 he wrote quite plainly that his model was bearish, so he had one bear call that was right, and one that was wrong."

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23108)	8/5/2006 7:33:20 PM
From: yaetmo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Math, As I remember, Bob did not use the term bear until well into 2001. In 2000, his talk about his asset allocation change was around downside risk vs. upside potential. His concern over upside/downside risk was related to an overheated economy, inflation, and the Fed tightening money ( higher discount rate ), not a bear recession. Before 2000, he frequently said he would not knowingly ride a bear down. That leads me to conclude that he never realised it was a bear until WAY TO LATE. Would he have sent out the special QQQ bulletin if he thought there was a bear around the next corner. So much for the finesse of the timing model.